For a current project I am PA for, this steel fabricator is creating additional shop drawings "For Fabrication" and the CM is uploading these requiring additional review after reviewing their original shop drawing. So whether the engineer is marking it "Reviewed", or "Furnish as Corrected", they are still creating additional submittals (with any changes incorporated), sometimes over 800 pages. In a few cases they created a new submittal "For Fabrication" for just a 12" long piece of handrail. Should we, the architects (and/or engineer) be providing additional reviews?
mark them "comments as per previous review dated X". We have a shopdrawing stamp that simply says "drawing not reviewed" for this purpose. If they need them reviewed again, then let the GC know that they will receive a bill for your additional time.
Jun 2, 20 10:51 am ·
·
archanonymous
Only thing I would add is to include the originally reviewed shops when you return these other one's stamped "not reviewed"
Jun 2, 20 11:42 am ·
·
archanonymous
And if you really want to CYA, send a separate memo on your firm's letterhead stating why you did not and will not review the drawings
Jun 2, 20 11:43 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
I have a memo on letterhead for this and will typically attach previous drawings. I'll sometimes make a summary memo of what was reviewed or not reviewed when submitting get messy.
Jun 2, 20 3:20 pm ·
·
admiralArchArch
That would make sense, though I think our front ends or contracts usually allow two (maybe three?) revisions before we bill. I have never seen this practiced.
And for your own sanity's sake as well as training contractors for the rest of us, DO NOT CHECK THEIR DIMENSIONS.
Jun 2, 20 12:26 pm ·
·
admiralArchArch
I wish I could do this but I can't for the sake of it will come back and bite me in the ass later when this precast or prefab whatever doesn't fit because they didn't FV. Sometimes checking avoids things like noticing the structural engineer had the wrong TOS noted in a general note for the roof structure, even though the model showed it correctly. Ended up having to redesign entire facade since the structure was installed higher.
Jun 2, 20 2:57 pm ·
·
archanonymous
Yeah I'm on Admiral's side here - check their dimensions, but give them no indication that you have unless something seems off. Then don't tell them they are wrong, just strongly suggest that they re-coordinate the work with x other trade.
Negative. We review for conformance with drawing intent. Never confirm dimensions. Good coordination and internal drawing review (plus competent staff) will make the shop drawing process much easier.
NS - do you not do overlays of different trades shops when there is critical areas to coordinate? Or check dims against field conditions? I check literally every number, tag and note they put on the drawings, but as you say, I confirm none of it, I just want to know it is correct. Maybe your contractors are just that much better up north?
Jun 2, 20 3:29 pm ·
·
archanonymous
Maybe I'm in Miles Jaffe (if a lawyer is involved, it's already too late) mode but I've learned that once something is fucked up, it doesn't matter who's fault it was, it is inherently difficult to un-fuck it due to project momentum and just the way projects tend to wrap up at the end.
Jun 2, 20 3:32 pm ·
·
Almosthip
That's for the GC to do, field confirm. Not the Arch
Jun 2, 20 3:34 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Arch, I do not do the GC or their sub/trades' job. I will review and coordinate my consultant's work but I'm not going to go and start marking-up shop drawings beyond conformance to design intent. If I do notice discrepancies (which means I do check dims, I do not correct them), I will send them back and ask for a re-do.
Most projects I've worked on I could see this making sense, but the last CA project I did had a lot of really off shop drawings that we could not get the subcontractors or GC to correct properly.
What then?
Jun 2, 20 7:14 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
What then? Big giant red font: “not reviewed” and a well worded letter to the owner removing that part of the project from our review scope.
Jun 2, 20 7:23 pm ·
·
archanonymous
natematt - get into the field and watch them do the work. When I'm doing things hard to capture in shop drawings (random layouts or patterns, patinas, surface finishes, in-place repairs, complex or unusual wall geometry in plaster or tile) I often add notes and spec comments requiring they give appropriate notice for an in-situ review once a certain percentage of the stuff has been installed. It has worked out pretty well.
Yeah, I wonder if a lot of the commentators saying they gotta review the dims or else it won't end up looking good don't have a sit-down with the GC early so everyone can talk over the portions of the buildings that are gonna need shops. I've had GCs tell me they'd like me to help them make sure the dims are right, and I've helped them out, but I need to know beforehand.
Adding to all this that in many cases the contract itself will state that the architect has no responsibility to check dimensions. This is the responsibility of the contractor. From AIA A201:
Our responsibility is making clear our intent and providing enough information that a trade or sub can reasonably take their expertise and create a real thing that conforms to the intent as shown in the docs.
Going to make this easy. Review the submittals you require in the contract documents. Do not review the extra submittals the contractor throws at you. Return them or throw them away (I usually advocate for a paper trail indicating that you didn't review them). The following is a hidden comment and specification language from MasterSpec that addresses this in the submittal procedures section they produce:
Review of submittals that are not required may increase
Architect's liability and require additional effort for which fees may be
unavailable. Revise paragraph below according to office practice.
A. Submittals not required by the Contract Documents will
be returned by Architect without action.
Read the Contract, and become familiar with the rules and statues of your Architects association.
Do exactly as those two tell you, and not an ounce more nor less.
If you do, either can get you into a whole pile of problems no matter how cooperative or well-meaning you were.
If you see a dimension that it totally wacko, don't mark it, just say something to the effect "Job check all dimension before fabrication", and leave it at that.
That said, if the fabricator is your best friend, call him and tell him off-the-record, "Dude, you got some dud dimensions there. Ask your guys to check them".
Remember, he is your friend, and he will probably cover your ass one day, because we all make mistakes.
Alright?
Jun 3, 20 10:23 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Shop Drawings for Fabrication
For a current project I am PA for, this steel fabricator is creating additional shop drawings "For Fabrication" and the CM is uploading these requiring additional review after reviewing their original shop drawing. So whether the engineer is marking it "Reviewed", or "Furnish as Corrected", they are still creating additional submittals (with any changes incorporated), sometimes over 800 pages. In a few cases they created a new submittal "For Fabrication" for just a 12" long piece of handrail. Should we, the architects (and/or engineer) be providing additional reviews?
mark them "comments as per previous review dated X". We have a shopdrawing stamp that simply says "drawing not reviewed" for this purpose. If they need them reviewed again, then let the GC know that they will receive a bill for your additional time.
Only thing I would add is to include the originally reviewed shops when you return these other one's stamped "not reviewed"
And if you really want to CYA, send a separate memo on your firm's letterhead stating why you did not and will not review the drawings
I have a memo on letterhead for this and will typically attach previous drawings. I'll sometimes make a summary memo of what was reviewed or not reviewed when submitting get messy.
That would make sense, though I think our front ends or contracts usually allow two (maybe three?) revisions before we bill. I have never seen this practiced.
And for your own sanity's sake as well as training contractors for the rest of us, DO NOT CHECK THEIR DIMENSIONS.
I wish I could do this but I can't for the sake of it will come back and bite me in the ass later when this precast or prefab whatever doesn't fit because they didn't FV. Sometimes checking avoids things like noticing the structural engineer had the wrong TOS noted in a general note for the roof structure, even though the model showed it correctly. Ended up having to redesign entire facade since the structure was installed higher.
Yeah I'm on Admiral's side here - check their dimensions, but give them no indication that you have unless something seems off. Then don't tell them they are wrong, just strongly suggest that they re-coordinate the work with x other trade.
Negative. We review for conformance with drawing intent. Never confirm dimensions. Good coordination and internal drawing review (plus competent staff) will make the shop drawing process much easier.
NS - do you not do overlays of different trades shops when there is critical areas to coordinate? Or check dims against field conditions? I check literally every number, tag and note they put on the drawings, but as you say, I confirm none of it, I just want to know it is correct. Maybe your contractors are just that much better up north?
Maybe I'm in Miles Jaffe (if a lawyer is involved, it's already too late) mode but I've learned that once something is fucked up, it doesn't matter who's fault it was, it is inherently difficult to un-fuck it due to project momentum and just the way projects tend to wrap up at the end.
That's for the GC to do, field confirm. Not the Arch
Arch, I do not do the GC or their sub/trades' job. I will review and coordinate my consultant's work but I'm not going to go and start marking-up shop drawings beyond conformance to design intent. If I do notice discrepancies (which means I do check dims, I do not correct them), I will send them back and ask for a re-do.
Checking dimensions:
This is an interesting line of conversation.
Most projects I've worked on I could see this making sense, but the last CA project I did had a lot of really off shop drawings that we could not get the subcontractors or GC to correct properly.
What then?
What then? Big giant red font: “not reviewed” and a well worded letter to the owner removing that part of the project from our review scope.
natematt - get into the field and watch them do the work. When I'm doing things hard to capture in shop drawings (random layouts or patterns, patinas, surface finishes, in-place repairs, complex or unusual wall geometry in plaster or tile) I often add notes and spec comments requiring they give appropriate notice for an in-situ review once a certain percentage of the stuff has been installed. It has worked out pretty well.
Yeah, I wonder if a lot of the commentators saying they gotta review the dims or else it won't end up looking good don't have a sit-down with the GC early so everyone can talk over the portions of the buildings that are gonna need shops. I've had GCs tell me they'd like me to help them make sure the dims are right, and I've helped them out, but I need to know beforehand.
Adding to all this that in many cases the contract itself will state that the architect has no responsibility to check dimensions. This is the responsibility of the contractor. From AIA A201:
Our responsibility is making clear our intent and providing enough information that a trade or sub can reasonably take their expertise and create a real thing that conforms to the intent as shown in the docs.
Going to make this easy. Review the submittals you require in the contract documents. Do not review the extra submittals the contractor throws at you. Return them or throw them away (I usually advocate for a paper trail indicating that you didn't review them). The following is a hidden comment and specification language from MasterSpec that addresses this in the submittal procedures section they produce:
Review of submittals that are not required may increase Architect's liability and require additional effort for which fees may be unavailable. Revise paragraph below according to office practice.
A. Submittals not required by the Contract Documents will be returned by Architect without action.
You read those notes? YOU FOOL! ;)
lol, I mean I suppose I could just guess as to why it's there, but it seems like the notes are at least trying to help.
I'll just leave this here too, clipped from AIA A201:
don't be a dick
Unless you have too.
What to do and not do about shop drawings...
Read the Contract, and become familiar with the rules and statues of your Architects association.
Do exactly as those two tell you, and not an ounce more nor less.
If you do, either can get you into a whole pile of problems no matter how cooperative or well-meaning you were.
If you see a dimension that it totally wacko, don't mark it, just say something to the effect "Job check all dimension before fabrication", and leave it at that.
That said, if the fabricator is your best friend, call him and tell him off-the-record, "Dude, you got some dud dimensions there. Ask your guys to check them".
Remember, he is your friend, and he will probably cover your ass one day, because we all make mistakes.
Alright?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.